1. Appeals challenging High Court orders rejecting writ petitions for the transfer of investigation to an independent agency. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ranoo Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1867 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl) No. 12751 of 2022 With Crl. A. No. 1868 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl) No. 4832 of 2023 & Crl.A. No. 1868 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl) No. 4832 of 2023 @ Diary No(s). 31835 of 2023
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Piyush Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv. Ms. Shrawani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Garima Prasad Sr. Advocate, A.A.G. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Shristi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Aniruddh Sharma-ii, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Piyush Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv. Ms. Shrawani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Garima Prasad Sr. Advocate, A.A.G. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Shristi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Aniruddh Sharma-ii, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
CBI investigation can be ordered even after filing of charge-sheet.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – CBI investigation – Only reason given in impugned judgments and orders is that since charge-sheets had already been filed, no ground was made out for transfer of investigation to another agency, viz, CBI – This cannot be a ground for rejecting prayer for transfer of investigation to an independent agency – When serious allegations have been made by appellant(s), High Court should at least have assigned reasons in brief as to why grounds prayed for transfer were not found to be sufficient – Impugned order(s) quashed and set aside and matters remitted back to High Court for deciding them afresh, in accordance with law. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge judgments and orders passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, thereby rejecting writ petitions filed by appellant(s) for transferring of investigation to an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).
Findings of Court:
We request High Court to decide petitions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Transfer of investigation to an independent agency was denied on the ground that charge-sheets had already been filed. (Para 4 )
3. Filing of charge-sheets is insufficient ground to reject transfer of investigation when serious allegations are made without the court assigning specific reasons. (Para 5 )
4. The filing of charge-sheets does not preclude the transfer of investigation to an independent agency where serious allegations are raised. (Para 5 )
5. Impugned orders quashed and matters remitted to the High Court for fresh decision within six months. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Does the filing of charge-sheets preclude the transfer of an investigation to an independent agency?
No, the filing of charge-sheets cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer for transfer of investigation to an independent agency, especially when serious allegations have been made. (Para 5 )
7. What is the duty of the High Court when rejecting a prayer for transfer of investigation based on serious allegations?
The High Court should assign brief reasons explaining why the grounds prayed for the transfer of investigation were not found to be sufficient. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals challenge the judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, thereby rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) for transferring of investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’).
4. The only reason given in the impugned judgments and orders is that since the charge-sheets had already been filed, no ground was made out for transfer of investigation to another agency, viz, CBI.
5. In our view, this cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer for transfer of investigation to an independent agency. When serious allegations have been made by the appellant(s), the High Court should at least have assigned reasons in brief as to why the grounds prayed for transfer were not found to be sufficient.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order(s) are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for deciding them afresh, in accordance with law.
7. We request the High Court to decide the petitions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today.
8. We clarify that we have not considered the merits of the matters and the impugned judgments and orders have been quashed and set aside only on the aforesaid grounds.
9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
